I think the real question here, though, is this: How would crashing an SR-71 into a stick at over Mach 3 help you communicate faster?

I mean I get that you could make the other end of the stick move once, but then what? If you wanted to communicate consistently, you'd have to crash more than one SR-71 into your end of the stick; like some sort of strange telegraph machine. Given that you wouldn't even be able to differentiate between binary operators, you'd need several planes to encode even a single letter. On the ground, the logistics of this would just be a nightmare; you would need hundreds of airstrips constantly launching SR-71's, and they would need to meet up, get in formation, in a perfectly straight line with the right amount of spacing between them, headed straight for your end of the stick. Then they would need to accelerate simultaneously to Mach 3, and they would begin transmitting your message when they hit the stick; a rapid succession of pulses sent to the other end of the stick, to be received by some hapless individual who knows not what tragedy has been wrought on the other end to bring them your words.

I can't come up with specific examples for all of those off the top of my head, but for the record racism was present in the Chinese empire.

It was often expressed in different language than what you hear today, but Han Chinese definitely saw themselves as a race which was more cultured and advanced than non-Han peoples like the Jurchens/Manchu, Mongols, Annamese/Vietnamese, Koreans, and particularly the Japanese.

Likewise the Mongols and Manchus often saw the Han Chinese as weak and effeminate. Predictably, that idea really flared up in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Ming (Han) dynasty and the rise of the Qing (Manchu) dynasty.

I do know the Romans were not kind to those who they perceived as non-Roman, but I'm uncertain to what extent it was based on racial distinctions. I want to say it was, but I don't want to make unfounded claims. I'll get back to you on that.

Europeans in the Middle Age were very racist. For example, violence against Jews in Germany and France does date back to at least the middle ages, and it's stated very much in racial terms; definitely more so than religious. Institutionalized discrimination, too, dates back to at least the middle ages, and was one of the reason you had so many Jewish moneylenders; they were denied landowning privileges and barred from several other professions.

People in the African kingdoms? I'm honestly not an authority on that in any way. I could tell you about Northern Africa after Islam, but otherwise I can't tell you much. In any case though; I think he's right, the world has traditionally been pretty racist, but I don't think that necessarily precludes you being right. The fact that things have been a certain way for thousands of years does not preclude the possibility of them changing. You could both be right.

Look mang... I get what you were trying to say, and parts of your argument are valid, but the way you've phrased it sounds absolutely horrifying.

Slavery was bad, but two things: first, it was economic. I mean that is just how "jobs" worked back then... You were an indentured servant, or a slave or whatever. Life was significantly more rough for all workers back then, not just blacks.

You're severely undermining the gap between non-slaves and slaves. Indentured servants had basic guarantees of protection from permanent bodily harm, and could expect to be released from their obligations in 7 to 10 years. Slaves could expect to work until they died, and could legally be killed at will by their masters.

If we're thinking of this as a totem pole of socio-economic classes, slavery wasn't "probably" the bottom of the totem pole, it wasn't even on the totem pole. Given that slaves were literally not legally considered people in the same sense as free men, slavery meant being buried below the fucking totem pole.

500 years ago, when Europeans met Africans

European and African civilizations have been in contact since the dawn of European civilization. In the 1500s, when you're saying Europeans "met" Africans, Europe was a goddamn global backwater, with very little ability to project power across the world. In 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire. It took until 1492 for the Spanish to force the Moors out of the Iberian peninsula; it's absolutely ludicrous to say that 500 years ago "Africans were a thousand years behind in terms of civilization."

government

Most governments in Europe at this point consisted of relatively weak feudal structures, in which local nobles competed with monarchs for power.

nation-building

In 1500, nobody had any concept of nationhood. It would be hundreds of years before anyone would clearly elucidate a concept of national identity.

technology

In 1500 Europe was technologically backwards. Africa and the Middle East, however, were doing relatively well technologically; particularly North and West Africa, largely because of their association not with Europe, but with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. European global technological superiority would not become an established fact until the rise of steam-powered devices in the late 1700s and early 1800s; an event often referred to as "the Great Divergence."

African civilization was by no means "behind" European civilization 500 years ago. It is true that over the next few hundred years a technological gap did emerge, but the "Great Divergence" between European technology and that of the remainder of the world would not become well established until the very late 1700s.

If anything, the persistence of significant socio-economic disparities between white and black communities in the US so many generations after the end of slavery should tell you that something is still reinforcing that disparity.

You've made a number of broad, sweeping claims that "white people were far more advanced than them", or that European culture was vastly superior. It wasn't; it became more technologically advanced very, very suddenly in the mid-to late-1700s as a result of a very specific set of historical circumstances which allowed the development of industrial-scale productive forces; a political and economic 'perfect storm' that just happened to hit England.

But the fact that not every black person is successful, does not make me racist.

At some level I can understand feeling like it's not your responsibility to fix shit that your ancestors fucked up 200 years ago, but Jesus man, at least don't try to downplay slavery, and acknowledge that there's a problem still.

I think that they mean by that that the US is no longer able to claim the high road, whether to others or itself. That Americans can look in the mirror and feel pride that they are Americans. It doesn't necessarily mean having authority over actions of others, but having even a trace of morality.

It's not about the 'others' though, as much as the self. We looked in the mirror this year and saw Ferguson. And it wasn't pretty.

I see it in a number of places; little things mostly. I'm not heavily involved in government, so I don't see it happen very often in government, but I do see it happen elsewhere. In my region I'm more likely to see more examples of discrimination based on other factors, like gender or orientation, but these things aren't all unrelated; there is a certain level of Intersectionality here.

My friend who looks vaguely middle-eastern has literally never been through an airport without getting pulled aside for 'random security checks.' A good friend of mine once lost his job because his employers discovered he was gay, but because he couldn't prove that it was because he was gay. It wasn't a low-end job either, and he was doing well in it. He hasn't been able to find a job on anywhere near the same level since then. My county's fire department has hired one female firefighter. Ever. She was moved to desk work a few months later. There are 2 female firefighters in my county currently; both of them were men when they were hired. There are more male-to-female transgendered persons than there are hired-as-women women in my county's fire department. I was out one night and I saw a guy looking through trash cans and asking people for money. He wasn't being particularly aggressive or anything, and it was cold out, and I could tell he was tired as fuck.

I was waiting outside a bar for someone at night, and a situation started to develop; a policeman came over and started yelling at the guy. I wanted to ask what he even did wrong, but I figured it was probably better to not get involved. Now I kind of wish I had at least asked, because the guy clearly just wanted to be left alone, but the policeman just kept yelling at him louder, and eventually the guy was just cowering on the sidewalk while this police officer yelled at him. There was no outright violence, but it was clear that this officer was just venting his anger on this guy because he could. People were crossing the street to avoid the scene.

And I'm just standing there thinking "Jesus, what did the guy do? This isn't how the law works; if he's breaking the law that severely, arrest him. If he didn't, leave him the fuck alone."

I've seen other occasions where black homeless men were accosted and harassed by the police, but there's white homeless people all over that street too, and I've never seen the police even begin to approach any of them even when they were being aggressive and I would have appreciated police intervention.

No, I've never seen any unarmed people get shot, and I've never seen anyone 'not get hired', on the basis of race, but I've also actually never been in charge of hiring, so there's that too. I do see it though; I see it in little things, and in all of these cases it goes completely unchallenged.

This post is interesting to me. There's actually a large Lebanese population in Georgia; in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a lot of Lebanese immigrants moved to Georgia; specifically a lot of Maronite Christians, and you have a large diaspora Lebanese population there today still. They were actually pretty well accepted by the local population at the time because rather than perceiving them as foreigners, established Georgian communities viewed them first and foremost as Christians, even when they weren't actually Christian. The name "Lebanon" was tied up with Christian imagery, and a lot of Lebanese migrants became itinerant merchants selling religious symbols which they claimed came were from the Holy Land in Lebanon, so that might have helped reinforce that image.

So when you watch the Charlie Brown Christmas special, and Sally says "Would you like to buy a Christmas wreath made from trees from the forests of Lebanon?", I'm not sure if it's intentional on Schultz' part or if he was just using a phrase he heard somewhere, but that's exactly what he's referring to.

I wonder if the acceptance of Lebanese immigrants in an otherwise racially divided Georgia is a product of that? It's purely speculation; but it'd be interesting to take a look further in to that and see if the case of ethnically Lebanese people in Georgia is somehow exceptional.

It doesn't need to be that, and it doesn't need to be a moral authority over anyone in particular, but given that I live in America I want to be able to have some faith in my own country's moral standing.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I do want to point something out:

The earliest example I've found of people being discriminated against specifically for the color of their skin was in India. The Vedas describe a struggle against a foreign "dark" enemy, and their skin is dark, and there's a very distinct tie between 'darkness' and evil. The word describing the dehumanized enemy actually means 'the darks', so to speak.

Historically this period is tied with the Aryan movement into northern India, and it's likely that the Vedic image of 'dark skin' as a marker of evil originated from frequent conflict with the darker-skinned peoples who made up Harappan Indian society to the south.

But it hasn't always been that way around the world; there are examples of light-skinned people being discriminated against. Whatever form of racism develops though, it's almost always initially based on a need for community solidarity or economic imperative.

So what do China, Africa, and India have in common? A relatively recent history of colonialism by European powers, the result of which was that having lighter skin made it easier to blend in with, and be seen as one of, the occupying powers, which provided a better chance of achieving wealth and influence.

It's hardly surprising in that context, that racism would take on similar forms in those countries, but racism in the US has always been different because the initial division between white and black-skinned people was extremely clear-cut, as was the divide in economic and political status. This isn't just something that developed within the context of our culture, it was present from the beginning, and persisted in the foundations of our country's legal structure throughout almost all of our history.

That does make sense, but can you elaborate on it a bit more? Based on what you said above, it seemed like TheNation dude summed up my answer to your question pretty well, but based on this it sounds like you might not be asking quite what I thought.

I actually agree with you on the "justified practice" principle; I was on the other side of this coin once when I talked to a wheelchair bound transgendered person. I'm not making this up; he/she (I never found out which and I couldn't tell) wanted to be part of the Secret Service, and said that their refusal to hire him/her was unfair and that they should "accommodate me." I told him "Hey, no offense, but how would you actually do that? I mean don't you have to follow the president around everywhere he goes? What if the work requires you to go somewhere that isn't wheelchair accessible?"

Person said that the Secret Service should "find a way to accommodate me", arguing that he was really good at shooting, and he was incredibly accurate, therefore he was qualified for the job.

I'm sorry, but in order to get this job, you must be this not-delusional and you must be able to walk.

The firefighter case is different though. They just don't hire women; the environment is not hospitable to women, and they see it as a male safe-space which should remain free from women. I get that there's also validity to the idea of safe-spaces, but the fire department is a public institution.

The case of the one women who was hired is interesting because it was in the late 80s; she was hired specifically in order to comply with an Affirmative Action requirement, not because of her credentials or anything, and because she was hired for the wrong reasons, it should have surprised nobody when she was not able to do her job properly.

I've actually used your top post as an example of what I meant in 2 other places so far because I found it so perfectly summed up what I meant.

This isn't about having moral authority over others, although the fact that we often claim to is irritating, it's about looking at ourselves in a mirror and seeing an event which reveals something ugly under the facade.

I want formal legal equality for people of any race, gender, sex, orientation, and practical equality as well. Regardless of how you decide to treat different types of criminals, your treatment should be uniform regardless of race, gender, and sex.

We're pretty close to formal legal equality, but still far from equal treatment in practice. The most frustrating part of what happened in Ferguson is that everything the police did was legal.

Nobody has absolute moral authority, no; and it's not so much an issue of having moral authority over other countries. I think /u/TheNationsBusiness put it pretty well on another comment thread;

I think that they mean by that that the US is no longer able to claim the high road, whether to others or itself. That Americans can look in the mirror and feel pride that they are Americans. It doesn't necessarily mean having authority over actions of others, but having even a trace of morality.

This is true. Pointing out others' flaws doesn't necessarily have to preclude the existence of internal flaws, however when accusations take on a moralizing tone I feel like it cheapens it and reflects badly on the accusatory party; like it's failing to own up to its own issues so thoroughly that it claims to still be on the moral high ground.

I am a terrible person for the measures I took, and I am aware of it.
it's all my fault.

It sounds like you're carrying around a lot of guilt for things that you had no control over. None of this is your fault. His life is ruined now, but you didn't ruin his life. He ruined his own life.

I'm not judging you for anything; to the contrary I think it's great that you did what you needed to do to protect yourself and got the police involved. That was exactly the right thing to do.

I don't see anything you did in this story that could get you into any legal trouble; you're very obviously the victim in this story, and there's no way this case can be turned back against you. You've done nothing wrong.

I can see how it might be difficult to move on after a whole mess like that though. It might be best for you to just be single for awhile. Not "the rest of your life", but maybe give it a year or two. It sounds like you might have issues with emotional manipulation in relationships because you've never had a chance to learn to invest your emotions in people who weren't romantic partners. Get closer to your family or your friends; learn to bare your soul to people who aren't romantic partners. And be careful; don't let yourself be vulnerable around someone unless they're willing to let down their guard for you too. Healthy relationships should be reciprocal.

Some people will probably try to give you advice along the lines of "You'll be fine, now get back out there and look for a new boyfriend!", but that is terrible advice. You're not 'broken forever', but you've been through Hell and it's going to take you some time to recover emotionally from that. And when you do think you're ready to be open in that way again, be careful. Throwing yourself into a relationship with reckless abandon is glorified in American culture, but honestly it's a terrible idea because you're as likely to wind up in a happy relationship as you are to wind up in an abusive one.

If you think you might like a guy, get to know him before you bare your soul to him. Go slow. Sometimes trying to get close to someone who's emotionally guarded can be frustrating, yes, but remember, you have a right to guard your emotions. Being able to let yourself be emotionally vulnerable to everyone would be nice, but because of people like your exes, we can't have nice things. It doesn't you can never have that, but it does mean you have to be careful.

I wrote a paper on this for a City and Regional planning class last year and drew the exact same conclusion. I concluded that most of all, the fact that the streetcar system wasn't grade separated from other systems which used smaller, individually controlled vehicles meant that it could never be a viable mass transit option in the long term.

Your flair made me wonder how flair is determined on this subreddit and why I don't have flair right now. How do you acquire flair... Is it assigned, and if so, is it assigned by a mod, by a script, randomly generated? Or what? Does it use your comment history or something? Because I feel like that would be extraordinarily difficult to do, but it would also be pretty cool.